LG Goes Wide with 21:9 Cinematic EA93 Monitor



+ Add a Comment


I would pick one up if it didn't strain my eyes playing Guild Wars 2 =)
GW2 strains my eyes =)



Why is it 21:9 instead of 7:3? Are we trying to get common denominators to compare to 16:9? If so, why didn't we up 4:3 to 12:9 and what do we do with 16:10 (cough 8:5 cough)?

...must reduce fraction...must reduce fraction...brainwashing from math class compels me, just as it dictates that I should adhere to the somewhat obsolete practice of removing radicals from denominators...



What's the point of 21:9? 16:9 already works well enough for movies, and anything much wider is too wide for use with anything else (unless you want 2 ~4:3 windows side by side).


John Pombrio

Huh, I expected a lot of bitching about the "rotten" aspect ratio. There was a lot of comments flashing about when 16:9 took over from 16:10. I donno if I would want a 21:9 monitor, it would be nice for movies (which I don't watch on my monitor) and showing dual pages on PDfs but that would be about it. I would have to try one out for a while...



Aspect ratio = interesting.

Resolution = something to "bitch" about.



video editors dream!! shut up and take my money!



That is cool, until you watch a TV-show with 4:3 ratio.
For reasons/settings I don't know, my BluRay player won't maintain the 4:3 ratio on my TV but stretches it to 16:9 which makes the skinny people of the 80's look as fat as people of today. I suppose People of tomorrow will feel good about watching fatties on 21:9. All I want is to have all video material shot in 16:9 IMAX format and stop messing around.



This thing can replace a dual-monitor setup. One less power cable to plug in and no annoying bezel in the middle =)



Still less than 90% of the total pixel count of the ipad 3...

Real frickin innovative, LG. Wake me up when you hit 3 million pixels...

(Note: I hate apple as a company, and yet lust over the ipad3 screen)



Which is less than 86% of the total pixel count of any decent monitor weighing in at 2560x1440, particularly the nice new IPS monitors coming out for less than $500! Also, the monitor typically won't scorch your lap or lower your sperm count :D

3,686,400 vs 3,145,728 pixels...

Don't compare apples to oranges in the first place (pardon the pun).



But you're not using your desktop at 1 foot. You're 3-4 feet away.



Yes, and I still need more detail. I'm feeling that pixels will still be visible. I'd also like more than 1080 vertical pixels per column.

Higher resolution allows for more content on the screen with greater detail.



I hope that screen rotates. I want a taller screen for webpages, then wider for movies.


Peanut Fox

There is no way that stand is tall enough to allow for rotation. I've got 16:10 Dells and even with those I've got to put in some effort when I take them portrait.



I want one...



I have been waiting for this, ever since Vizio announced their new TV with the same aspect ratio and resolution. However, Vizio's is $2500, and 58".

I think it should be great for a lot of games, instead of the multi monitor setup (those bezels are what prevents me from going multi). And it would not kill most graphics card since 2560x1080 is really only 50% more pixels than a 1920x1200. All in all, if the price is reasonable (unlike Vizio's), then I think these should really sell.

I can't understand why people think of these for movies more than for gaming... Since even 21x9 formatted blu-rays nowadays are NOT using the vertical 1080P, but really 820P (to fit the 21x9 in a 1920 horizontal pixels). So I guess those monitors will need to stretch them, thus losing image quality.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.